Bajirao Maruti More vs Pandurang Shivaji Powar Advocate - S. P. Wagvekar — 100/2025
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 34,39. Status: Hearing Without W.S.. Next hearing: 17th July 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHKO190003372025
Next Hearing
17th July 2026
e-Filing Number
17-05-2025
Filing Number
130/2025
Filing Date
19-05-2025
Registration No
100/2025
Registration Date
19-05-2025
Court
Civil and Criminal Court , Radhanagari
Judge
1-CJJD and JMFC Radhanagari
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Bajirao Maruti More
Adv. A. S. Jadhav
Respondent(s)
Pandurang Shivaji Powar Advocate - S. P. Wagvekar
Saravade Vyapari Association Co op Credit Society Limited Saravade
Adv. V. S. Khorate
Hearing History
Judge: 1-CJJD and JMFC Radhanagari
Hearing Without W.S.
W.S. and Say
W.S. and Say
W.S. and Say
W.S. and Say
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-06-2026 | Hearing Without W.S. |
| 09-04-2026 | W.S. and Say |
| 16-03-2026 | W.S. and Say |
| 12-01-2026 | W.S. and Say |
| 12-11-2025 | W.S. and Say |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 100/2025 Outcome: The petition (Application No. 17) filed by Bajirao Maruti More was ALLOWED/GRANTED. The court rejected Respondent No. 2 (Saravade Vyapari Association Co-op Credit Society Limited)'s contention that the case was outside the court's jurisdiction. The court held that despite the credit society's claim that disputes involving it should be resolved under the Cooperative Societies Act through a separate judicial mechanism, the present dispute—involving allegations that Respondent No. 1 unlawfully pledged the petitioner's daughter's gold bracelet with the credit society—relates to the society's business operations and falls within the civil court's jurisdiction. Accordingly, the civil suit is maintainable before this court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 100/2025 Outcome: The petition (Application No. 17) filed by Bajirao Maruti More was ALLOWED/GRANTED. The court rejected Respondent No. 2 (Saravade Vyapari Association Co-op Credit Society Limited)'s contention that the case was outside the court's jurisdiction. The court held that despite the credit society's claim that disputes involving it should be resolved under the Cooperative Societies Act through a separate judicial mechanism, the present dispute—involving allegations that Respondent No. 1 unlawfully pledged the petitioner's daughter's gold bracelet with the credit society—relates to the society's business operations and falls within the civil court's jurisdiction. Accordingly, the civil suit is maintainable before this court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts